Let's put it this way...

I'm VERY much against it.


The equal protection clause in the 14th amendment essentially states that laws must treat individuals equally, or in other words cannot be created to target specific individuals.

How is Bloomberg's attempt to thwart such laws not an example of opportunism, when he would never be able to even consider such a proposal if he was not so popular? I believe, at least some supporters of Giuliani for a 3rd tem suggested the same thing following 9/11, yet fortunately it did not occur.

Evidence suggests that since Nixon (and even more so since George W. Bush) America has increasingly awarded power to the executive branch of government at the expense of the Constitution.

Bloomberg's obvious awareness that he can undermine City Council's will to protect the Constitution through populism, since the Democratic leaders (Thompson and Quinn) have their own interests in mind (running for Mayor down the road/remaining in office) concerns me deeply as a proponent of Democratic ideals.

Regardless of what one thinks of Bloomberg's tenure, we do not need anymore movement towards Monarchy nor Oligarchy. Popular incumbents have left office before and we have survived just fine.

The paternalism of Bloomberg and Giuliani has been welcomed by many, but not all. If we have a Democracy those residents should always have the solace to know that the person they want removed will eventually leave office after two terms. How do NYC citizens feel about Bush using his popularity to push for the Patriot Act to be passed and invade Iraq as a result of fears that rose following 9/11?

Fear should not be the primary motivation for our interests, and I find it highly ironic that Bloomberg was likely only able to become Mayor in 2001 because of fear driven associations of he with Giuliani.

I also urge residents of New York to pay attention to other concerning signs in the city that only pro-corporate/financial institution Mayors like Giuliani and Bloomberg could have facilitated, at the expense of many lower-income residents needs and interests, particularly when it comes to gentrification.

Let me add to those who believe that term limits are "undemocratic"...

Is not there such thing as the tyranny of the majority?

Part of democracy, the ideal at least, is to believe that even the minority should have say in some way or form. Conventionalism and Populism sound democratic, but they can certainly lead the the silencing of dissent. As I stated earlier, those who do not like or support Bloomberg should be able to know that two terms was all one has to endure. Part of the rationale for term limits, in my view, is also to bring fresh blood who (hopefully) possess new ideas and views to the public, and perhaps are more connected to such views that may not be able to thrive in a current paradigm.

In fact, this is what some say is the purpose of party conventions, in that they are a way for citizens to learn about new potential candidates. Bloomberg takes a great deal of credit for pushing "unpopular" policies that he felt would work. Some have garnered results that have led to his popularity, while others have been polarizing, especially for those with less voice in the pro-corporate/financial institution dominated city he has pushed for. There may be another candidate who possesses acumen with regards to addressing these issues, which Bloomberg appears totally incapable of understanding (i.e. the consequences of increasing costs-of-living on many communities and residents, as well as on the ability to be a true center for developing artists), which may do the city some good that sociologists (Richard Florida) have found to be key to economic development and increased happiness in a society/city.